Intelligent people should know that strict ideologies are dangerous.  

It is easy to pick out the active ideologies of the right as they have been supremely dominate in the US, England and Australia for a generation—and growing in Europe during the last few decades.  Severe social service and pension cuts should result, they say, from a chronic government debt crisis (made critical due to a neoliberal mindset which allowed excessive speculation via the collusion of government policy makers, banks, and the derivative’s market).  

So the right's ideological break with reality is that the lower and middle classes need austerity because the elite lost a bunch of money, included theirs, and now must be nursed back to health.  As long as they are doing good, everyone else will--eventually.  It was a good, applicable theory, but it is no longer working in today's economy.

I will not again detail 40 years of stagnate wages during the doubling of major sector productivity, economic growth/consumer spending financed by the credit boom, the unleashing of the elite's $700,000,000,000 (trillion) derivative's market, and the like as I have in past posts.  People that don't get this, ideologically don't want to: this is my point.  Strict Ideologies will maintain loyalty within people despite reality, trample human dignity, and finally themselves.  They always have--at least for all of written history.

This should be easy enough to see if one can have some objectivity, understanding and discernment.  What is less clear is to pick out the currently dangerous ideologies of the left.  They have been off stage, nursing their wounds from the Communism as practiced in the USSR, and revamping their theories.  I suspect some of their potential neoHegelian ideologies could be just as dangerous.  Next I will examine what the loyal opposition has to offer us in the way of destructive ideologies which could—given 40 years or so—set us back just as have the Ayn Rand, neoliberal ideologies of today.

L. Anton Feriozzi